Edzer Pebesma wrote: > David, you may also notice that the map produced does not have a cell > centre or cell 'crossing' at (0,0). Of course you'd assume enough > cleverness that this would be enforced automatically, but too bad. Try > > v <- variogram(Ni ~ 1, jura.pred, cutoff=1.8, width=0.18, map=T) > > (making sure that the cutoff is a multiple of the width) and you'll see > something symmetric.
Edzer, Thanks for the quick response. That was pretty stupid of me, not noticing that there was a discrepency in the parameters. I should have considered something like that; the different dataset should not affect the algorithm! Indeed looking at [EMAIL PROTECTED],] in my example I see 0.06 0.06; this is the closest to (0,0). If I try an even multiple: v <- variogram(Ni ~ 1, jura.pred, cutoff=0.9, width=0.18, map=T) I get one of the cells as [61,] -2.77556e-17 -8.32667e-17 which I guess is (0, 0) for all practical purposes! Thanks again, D G Rossiter http://www.itc.nl/personal/rossiter _______________________________________________ R-sig-Geo mailing list R-sig-Geo@stat.math.ethz.ch https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-geo
